Brady v. Von Drehle Corporation

Filing 40

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 30 Motion to Transfer Case to the Western District of North Carolina.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JAMES BRADY, Case No. 14-cv-01732-VC Plaintiff, 7 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 8 9 v. VON DREHLE CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 30 10 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The motion to transfer the case is granted. Brady lives in Ohio and has no ties to the 13 Northern District of California. Von Drehle is incorporated and headquartered in Hickory, North 14 Carolina, within the Western District of North Carolina. Its main operations are there and it has 15 no facilities in the Northern District of California. Most of the party and non-party witnesses 16 identified in the parties' submissions are located in North Carolina, along the east coast, or in 17 Europe (setting aside for now whether those witnesses are legally appropriate). All relevant 18 documents appear to be located in North Carolina, including all financial records and documents 19 related to the design, marketing, distribution, and sales of the challenged products. Litigating this 20 case in North Carolina will therefore be less expensive and more convenient. And to the extent 21 there is local interest in this case, it is greater in North Carolina, where the defendant operates. 22 Finally, the courts in both districts are presumed equally familiar with patent law. In re TS Tech 23 U.S. Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 24 Brady argues that one of Von Drehle's 300 third-party distributors is located in Monterey, 25 California, and that Von Drehle has a paper towel manufacturing plant in Nevada. But there is no 26 indication that the Monterey distributor or the Nevada plant possesses any unique or 27 noncumulative information. Indeed, Brady's Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures do not list representatives 28 from either the distributor or the plant as potential witnesses. See Higgins Decl., Ex. 1 at 2. And 1 the Nevada plant does not even produce the paper towels used in the challenged dispensers. See 2 Reply at 5. Therefore, these connections, to the extent they are real ones at all, do not nearly tip 3 the balance in favor of litigating the case in the Northern District of California. 4 Brady also contends that the Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District 5 of California are equally convenient for him, dismissing as insignificant the approximately four 6 hours in added travel time. Even if the two districts were equally convenient for Brady, North 7 Carolina is significantly more convenient and less expensive for the defendant and for non-party 8 witnesses. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 The case is transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. Brady's request for discovery is denied. The Clerk is directed to transfer and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 25, 2014 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?